Driver Must Request UIM Coverage
Read full article at https://lnkd.in/ggKkFa7J, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g7Fdj2kF and at https://lnkd.in/g5HS52JW and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
Post 4748
Kimberly Rogers appealed from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court granting Lyft, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, Allstate Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment, and Erie Insurance Exchange’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In Kimberly Rogers v. Erie Insurance Exchange; Allstate Insurance Company; and LYFT, Inc., No. 2023-CA-0447-MR, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (April 19, 2024) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute.
FACTS
Kimberly Rogers was a driver for Lyft, Inc. (Lyft) and was involved in an automobile accident with another motor vehicle. Rogers apparently suffered substantial physical injuries. The driver of the other motor vehicle negligently caused the accident and was insured by State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). State Farm paid Rogers the policy’s liability coverage limits. At the time of the accident, Rogers’ vehicle was insured by Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie), and Lyft carried motor vehicle insurance with Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). Both Erie and Allstate denied Rogers’ claims for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits.
Rogers sued Erie, Allstate, and Lyft hoping one would provide UIM coverage.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Lyft is required by 601 KAR [Kentucky Administrative Regulations] 1:113 § 3(1) to maintain primary automobile insurance that provides coverage both for a driver who is logged into the Lyft application and for drivers engaged in a prearranged ride. Lyft is also required by 601 KAR 1:113 § 3(2) to maintain liability insurance, PIP [Personal Injury Protection] coverage, UM [Uninsured Motorist] coverage and UIM coverage for drivers who are logged into the Lyft application, who are not engaged in a prearranged ride.
Allstate insures Lyft under a policy of insurance that Defendant Allstate represents only provides the coverage required by KRS § 281.655(12) as a prearranged ride liability policy, which Allstate contends applies only when Plaintiff was carrying persons for Defendant Lyft.
Defendant Erie insures Plaintiff under a policy which it contends excludes UIM coverage for all transportation network company activities, whether as part of a pre-trip liability policy or prearranged ride liability policy.
To the extent that Defendant Allstate is contractually obligated to provide UIM coverage to Lyft drivers engaged in Lyft operations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and to the extent that Plaintiff was engaged in Lyft operations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Defendant Allstate is required to provide UIM coverage to the Plaintiff in an amount of at least $50,000. To the extent that it is determined that Plaintiff was not engaged in Defendant Lyft’s operations at the time of the collision Erie is required to provide UIM coverage to Plaintiff, not to exceed the limits of Plaintiff’s policy with Defendant Erie.
ANALYSIS
The Court of Appeals rejected Rogers’ contention that an ambiguity exists as to the exception to the UIM exclusion contained in the policy. Under its plain terms, the exception is triggered only if the automobile was “identified for Business use as indicated on the ‘Declarations.'” Rogers seizes upon the language on the declaration page that identified the use of her vehicle as “To work 10-14.” However, “To work” is commonly utilized to indicate that the insured drives the motor vehicle to and from work. Rogers admitted that her vehicle was not rated for business use as required under the exception to the UIM exclusion. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that Rogers was not entitled to UIM coverage under her policy of insurance.
Rogers additionally asserted that public policy requires Lyft and/or Erie to provide UIM coverage. Generally, UIM exclusions in motor vehicle insurance policies do not offend the public policy of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. UIM coverage is only required insurance coverage when the insured requests such coverage. The insured simply may disclose the business use of her motor vehicle and request UIM coverage rated for such use. She did not.
In sum, the Court of Appeals concluded that the circuit court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of Lyft, Allstate, and Erie and the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance, much to the surprise of some, is just a contract. It must be interpreted as written. UM and UIM coverage is available in the State of Kentucky if the insured requests the coverage and provides the insurer with information concerning the risk taken. Using a vehicle for Lyft is akin to the operation of a taxi cab and is not akin to a person who drives to and from work. By not properly asking for the coverage and advising the insurer of the risk, Ms. Rogers had no UM/UIM coverage.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
